Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > I'm not going into the original question except to point out that R is > licensed under GPL-2 and the quote was from the GPL-3 FAQ. As FSF > themselves insist, the two licences are incompatible. >
Let me quote the corresponding section in the GPL2 FAQ, then: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the > interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes > with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java > classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always > dynamically linked together. > > A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java > classes in your program, you must release the program in a > GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java > interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. Core R packages included in the R distribution are in fact "GPL (>= 2)" [*], but choosing GPLv2 or GPLv3 seems to make no difference in regard to the issue being discussed (again, according to the interpretation given by the FSF). Regards, Carlos [*] this is not the case for all the recommended packages in the distribution -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/licensing-of-R-packages-tp20497391p20503264.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
